Re: List of volunteers for the 2021-2022 NomCom

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 6/27/2021 10:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> I'm not against significant changes. I'm just against significant
> changes on the fly during the current year's process.

It's a fair point, but you seem to argue against that point in your 
following paragraph.

> Judging by the model we used to justify
> RFC8989, it seems to me there are probably several hundred people
> who may well not realise that they are eligible or even that the
> call for volunteers went out.

This is the first Nomcom with "new" eligibility criteria. Increasing or 
repeating the outreach for Nomcom members does not seem unwarranted, nor 
a "significant change on the fly".

I'm not advocating for changing the lottery process, but I have no 
problems with spending a bit more time on the process of creating the 
lottery pool given how small the pool is this year relative to previous 
years.  That smaller pool suggests a structural failure in outreach 
related to the changes in the eligibility criteria.

Mike


>
> Having looked again at BCP10, I do agree that the NomCom Chair has the
> power to re-open the call for volunteers for a week or so, but that
> doesn't seem worth doing without a mail shot to everybody that
> the code deems to be eligible. Judging by the model we used to justify
> RFC8989, it seems to me there are probably several hundred people
> who may well not realise that they are eligible or even that the
> call for volunteers went out. Remember we have *lots* of participants
> who are not on the general lists.
>
>     Brian
>